Why the study?
The study was conducted to examine the effects of stage duration on power output, oxygen uptake, and heart rate at peak level and ventilatory thresholds during synchronous arm crank ergometry.
Does protocol stage duration influence power output, oxygen uptake, and heart rate at peak level and ventilatory thresholds during synchronous arm crank ergometry in healthy participants?
Does protocol stage duration influence power output, oxygen uptake, and heart rate at peak level and ventilatory thresholds during synchronous arm crank ergometry in healthy participants?
Short-stage protocols during arm crank ergometry yield higher peak power output compared to 3-minute stepwise protocols, suggesting protocols should not be used interchangeably for determining training zones.
Protocols yield different peak power outputs in arm crank ergometry; leaves open whether HR- or VO2-based zones are interchangeable across protocols.
To examine the effects of stage duration on power output (PO), oxygen uptake ( V O 2 ), and heart rate (HR) at peak level and ventilatory thresholds during synchronous arm crank ergometry. Nineteen healthy participants completed a ramp, 1-min stepwise, and 3-min stepwise graded arm crank exercise test. PO, V O 2, and HR at the first and second ventilatory threshold (VT1, VT2) and peak level were compared among the protocols: a repeated measures analysis of variance was performed to test for systematic differences, while intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and Bland–Altman plots were calculated to determine relative and absolute agreement. Systematic differences among the protocols were found for PO at VT1, VT2, and peak level. At peak level, PO differed significantly among all protocols (ramp: 115 ± 37 W; 1-min stepwise: 108 ± 34 W; 3-min stepwise: 94 ± 31 W, p ≤ 0.01). No systematic differences for HR or V O 2 were found among the protocols. VT1 and VT2 were identified at 52% and 74% of V O 2 peak, respectively. The relative agreement among protocols varied (ICC 0.02–0.97), while absolute agreement was low with small-to-large systematic error and large random error. PO at VTs and peak level was significantly higher in short-stage protocols compared with the 3-min stepwise protocol, whereas HR and V O 2 showed no differences. Therefore, training zones based on PO determined in short-stage protocols might give an overestimation. Moreover, due to large random error in HR at VTs between the protocols, it is recommended that different protocols should not be used interchangeably within individuals.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kouwijzer et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: